Uncle Buck wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:38:58 -0800, FreeThink wrote:
The US is sending them to Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4199935.stm
Why would they be a less ethical weapon then a tank or plane? I
wonder
how long it will be before they kill some of their keepers? They
will
almost certainly kill bystanders.
A weapon can't be any more ethical than the war in which it is used.
IOW,
regardless of other issues, their use in an unethical war renders
them
unethical weapons, and vice versa. How you view the ethicalness of
this
current "ongoing hostilities" situation goes a long way towards
determining how ethical you see this weapon as being.
That issue aside, the term "robotic warrior" carries a connotation of
personhood or of a social intelligence of some sort. This critter
has
no intelligence. At least not above and beyond the person working
the
remote control. They're just about as much "warrior" as a remoted
controlled toy car.
I don't think that is entirely true. I think they can target on their
own. Even aquire targets when given the green light.
One could also say it's a coward's weapon, but then one could also
say this is a coward's war.
I can't differentiate types of war's too well. Only the politicians
that start them.
.
